JKR calls Labour's Bluff - Offering Meeting leadership only on her terms

[fromorbit]

JKR is playing at a different level. After Starmer and Reeves offered to meet with her she gave them her conditions.

I'll be happy to meet after NoXYinXXprisons, Lesbian Labour, Womens Rights Network, WomansPlaceUK and Alliance LGB have been given in person meetings with the Labour leadership. I'd also like to know whether Angela Rayner still considers the last two organisations hate groups.

They are trapped either they now have to meet with gay and women's groups and listen to them something they are desperate not to do. It is not impossible then that Reeves at least can be made to see some sense. Even talking with these groups and JKR will also make TRAs go ballistic and many will leave the party. Chances are that Labour will promise a bunch of stuff to JKR which If Labour still follow gender nonsense after that they can be fully held to account for. If they promise single sex spaces are safe then every time that is breached Labour's credibility will be on the line

Or if they refuse to meet with the groups they prove EVERYTHING JKR said in her essay was right.

The media are now hyping the meeting further locking Labour in

BRING IT ON
Keir Starmer insists he WILL meet with JK Rowling to thrash out trans and gender rights & ‘respects’ her views
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28714134/keir-starmer-jk-rowling-trans/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/24/labour-gender-transition-recognition-process-trans.

Why?

JKR wants to talk to labour politicians about women's rights, why are you saying she needs to talk to trans people? Odd thing to suggest, weird flex, as the young people say.

Currently really struggling with who to vote for (not the Tories) but the alternatives are not great.
THIS I wouldn’t even have to think about!

There is this fucking weird signal that goes out whenever women's rights are mentioned some kind of scrambler is deployed and all of a sudden it is all about trans rights. Odd.

The thought of him and them running the country in a little over a week is really frightening in terms of women losing our rights.

Yet Starmer's track record in terms of defending women's rights, particularly in relation to violence against women, is very good.

I don't see the big deal. If anyone really thinks Labour don't want to meet with gay and women's organisations, they're living in fantasy land. The notion that they're shaking in their shoes at the prospect is just absurd.

What JKR calls "women's rights" actually means "trans people". We can all see this I'm sure.

It's been hilarious the last few weeks watching party leaderships walking on a verbal tightrope desperately trying not to piss off any meaningful votes to their election victory on the trans identifying women v actual females, issue.
They are making an absolute nonsense of statements they make on the matter.
For instance, Sunak a few weeks ago, said ( to paraphrase):
Yes, I believe in biological sex matters and must come first, but I also believe in treating people with respect and empathy.
So, what does that actually mean, no transwomen cannot go in same sex places but we'll pay for 6 months therapy to get over being rejected, afterwards?

Makes no sense!

Whut

Fuck me, but she is amazing!

Only people who think women don't deserve human rights think this.

Or who have reading comprehension problems.

Nope,just you.

When they say 'trans people ' here, they actually mean 'men'

Some people don't like the idea of women talking without being overseen by men. It's why they hate Mumsnet.

With a weird wail-ey siren of 'riiggghts are noooot a pieeeeee, what are you looooosing! You peeeearrrrl cllluuuuttching bitches?????'

Predictable as the fucking tides.

Only ever about male trans rights though. Never any discussion about - for example - the staggeringly high number of teenage girls identifying as male and what might be the cause of that. Funny that. It's all about men's access to unconsenting women.

Edited to add: and how mean it is when women say 'no' and how, really, deep down, women shouldn't be allowed to say 'no' because it's not 'kind' (to men).

Are you suggesting women’s rights and trans demands are in conflict then? That’s not the usual tune.

It must be past your bedtime, no?

When they say 'trans people ' here, they actually mean 'men'

And when they say 'trans rights' they actually mean men's rights.

She is!

Thank you, been trying to work out what to say on my spoiled ballot. This is perfect!

Yet Starmer's track record in terms of defending women's rights, particularly in relation to violence against women, is very good.
As if by magic, the night shift arrives.

Look pal, Starmer says that his aim is to half VAWG.
What actual bollocks is that?

There is NO acceptable level of VAWG.

The only acceptable thing is to at least honestly say that you will strive to eliminate it, and set out how you will work towards it.

Reminds me of the rules of misogyny eg women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish, tut tut.

And now Labour are steaming on ahead with plans to make sure that trans is covered by the conversion therapy bill. 🙄

For any spoiled ballots 'I vote for JKR' might be a good way to spoil? If only we could really vote for her....

I'm definitely leaning towards I vote for JKR on my ballot paper unless Labour have a Road to Damascus moment in the next few weeks.

Just perfect. Thank you so much JK Rowling x

which they absolutely won't. Short of Starmer being caught on film battering a puppy to death with a baseball bat (or fox, for a change, whilst wearing a kimono) then the general election is in the bag. Does anyone here actually have a clue what, if anything starter stands for? The idea of him putting a line in the sand about anything at all is laughable.